|
Highlights from this issue include:
- Second Circuit affirms denial of a motion to compel arbitration when plaintiff received notice after the transaction through a “welcome kit,” which did not make the terms clear and conspicuous.
- Second Circuit reminds district courts that class settlement approval under CAFA requires them to consider allocation of recovery between class counsel and the class.
- Third Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Ninth Circuit affirm denial of class certification in cases alleging that insurers underestimated the actual cash value of totaled vehicles because the fact of damages was individualized.
- Fourth Circuit affirms remand based on CAFA’s local-controversy exception, clarifying standard for showing that more than two-thirds of putative class members are citizens.
- Fourth Circuit holds that South Carolina’s “door closing statute” does not control over Rule 23 in a putative class action involving proposed nationwide class allegations.
- Fourth Circuit affirms denial of certification in a TCPA based on plaintiff’s failure to prove an ascertainable class of call recipients.
- Fifth Circuit holds that only the named plaintiff’s standing is to be considered at the class certification stage.
- Ninth Circuit holds that plaintiff’s lack of equitable standing is grounds for remand, but defendant can waive this issue to keep case in federal court.
Kara E. Angeletti, Angela C. Bunnell, Gina Faldetta, and Gregory Franklin contributed to this article
|
